Supreme Court sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips decorates a cake inside his store in Lakewood, Colo., in 2014. The Supreme Court is setting aside a Colorado court ruling against a baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers. (Brennan Linsley / The Associated Press)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a Colorado baker had the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

In a 7-2 decision Monday, the court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips' First Amendment right to oppose same-sex marriage when it expressed hostility toward "his sincerely held religious beliefs." While it sided with Phillips in this case, the court made clear its ruling doesn't give businesses free rein to discriminate against LGBT customers.

"When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the commission's actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

In 2012, Phillips declined to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple. The two men then took the issue to the commission, which sided with the couple, rejecting the baker's argument that making such a cake would violate his First Amendment rights. The commissioners "showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility" toward Phillips, the court said, when they openly "disparaged" his faith "as despicable" and compared it "to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust."

The Supreme Court's ruling found the commission — and a Colorado appeals court that also ruled in favor of the gay couple — had erred. But Kennedy warned the court could come to a different conclusion in future similar cases.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy wrote.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

1/5Jack Phillips at his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colo., in 2014. Phillips' refusal to make a cake for a gay couple led to a Supreme Court battle. (File Photo/The New York Times)

3/5Baker Jack Phillips works on a creation at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled he was within his rights to refuse to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in a closely watched case pitting gay rights against religious liberty. (Bruce Ellefson / Alliance Defending Freedom)

4/5Charlie Craig (left) and David Mullins at home in Denver. A baker's refusal to bake their wedding cake led to a U.S. Supreme Court showdown. (2017 File Photo / The New York Times)

5/5The Supreme Court is setting aside a Colorado court ruling against a baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig (left) and David Mullins. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gays and lesbians. (2017 File Photo / The Associated Press)

Dale Carpenter, an LGBT rights experts at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, said the ruling is very narrow and did not answer the one big question before the court: "Can the state require businesses to serve their customers without discrimination?"

mobile-only dfpPosition1

"The case promised an earthquake in American law, and it delivered barely a tremble," Carpenter said, adding the court may have come to a different conclusion if the commission had been "more cautious, more solicitous of [Phillips'] views, more willing to indulge the sincerity of his views."

There are several similar cases that may answer the larger question of where a business owner's right to free expression ends and the rights of LGBT people to marry begin, including a florist who refused to make arrangements for same-sex weddings in Washington and another case like Masterpiece Cakeshop's out of Oregon.

In Texas, LGBT rights advocates responded to the decision by urging lawmakers to enact a statewide ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"Texas law does not explicitly protect LGBTQ Texans from discrimination in stores and restaurants, in the workplace, or in access to housing," Equality Texas CEO Chuck Smith said in a prepared statement. "It's time for our nation's laws to catch up to our nation's values and protect all Americans from discrimination. No one should be fired from their job, denied a place to live, or turned away from a business simply because of who they are."

But Texas conservatives hailed the ruling as a victory.

"The Supreme Court's ruling affirms that the First Amendment contains robust protections for people who choose to operate their business consistent with their faith," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed an amicus brief siding with the baker, said in a statement. "Every American should have the freedom to choose what they will or won't create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government."

Lauren McGaughy. Lauren has covered Texas politics for four years, focusing on everything from K-12 education to state gun laws.
She currently writes about criminal justice, state courts and issues pertinent to the LGBTQ community. She previously worked for The Houston Chronicle and in Baton Rouge, where she covered Louisiana politics for NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune. She loves cats and comic books and cooks a mean steak.